Equal Before Allah, Unequal Before the Prophet? Ongoing Discourse on Matn Criticism and Its Influence on Muslim Feminist Thought

Abstract

The question of whether Muslim scholars evaluated mutūn has garnered considerable interest that evolved into vigorous debates within Islamic studies. Muslim academics countered pioneering orientalists’ narrative by asserting that matn criticism has always been integral to text verification. Others maintained that it was mainly the domain of the uṣūliyyūn. Based on the varying stances, this article presents four viewpoints with regards to muḥaddithūn’s engagement in matn criticism. In the realm of Muslim feminist thought, such debates are often considered peripheral. They underscore a substantial lacuna in matn criticism, thus advocating for innovative approaches such as the tawhidic paradigm and the Qur’ānic-weltanschauung analysis. To provide a more nuanced analysis, the first part of this article proposes a new schema that distinguishes between isnād-based and text-based matn criticism. Utilising a qualitative research methodology, this paper contends that not all principles of naqd were employed by the muḥaddithūn, as some have been applied by other scholars, particularly the uṣūliyyūn. The second part explores the impact of classical methodologies on contemporary Muslim feminist thought. Findings of this paper prove that the principles introduced by Muslim Feminists are relatively subjective, rather than being conclusively objective, therefore rendering it insufficient to unequivocally reject established narrations. Instead, it suffices only to be used as tools for new readings. This article represents the inaugural scholarly effort to delineate contrasting perspectives on matn criticism, which offers a unique contribution, especially for non-Arabic readers.